- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:19:54 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 11:09, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Hi Dan > > thanks for your comment on goofy literals. > > Before the Working Group discusses this comment I wanted to check that you had > seen the line in that subsection: > [[ > The lexical form is present in all RDF literals; the language identifier and > the datatype URI may be absent from an RDF literal. > ]] > and find that insufficient. Ah, no, in fact, I didn't see that. I suppose that's sufficient, but... > I take it that the text you would prefer is: > > [[ > A literal in an RDF graph containing up to three components called: I can't parse that. I don't really like the An _x_ contains _n_ components: style anyway. Saying what something has doesn't define it. I have 2 arms. But I am not my two arms. Suggest: A literal is either a plain literal or a typed literal. A plain literal is either * a Unicode string in Normal Form C * a pair of such a string and a language tag A typed literal is a plain literal paired with a URI reference. > + The lexical form being a Unicode [UNICODE] string in Normal Form C [NFC] > (required). > + The language identifier as defined by [RFC-3066], normalized to lowercase > (optional). > + The datatype URI being an RDF URI reference (optional). > > A plain literal is one in which the datatype URI is absent. > > A typed literal is one in which the datatype URI is present. > ]] > > Have I understood correctly, or could we just leave it as it is? > > Jeremy -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 12:20:25 UTC